Penn State AD and Sandusky Charged

What do you mean by "pretty uncommon," how long is "some time ago," and what are the number of reasons? Congress didn't agree that it was uncommon in 2003 when it passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act, and the results of the latest DOJ survey say that about 4.5% of prison inmates had been sexually assaulted in the last year (though admittedly about half that for male inmate-on-inmate rape). And there are obvious sampling issues that would make it fair to assume the DOJ's estimates are low.

Inmate advocacy groups will tell you prison rape endemic; prison officials and at least one study will tell you it's a media-concocted myth; I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Yeah, I did a crappy job there--mostly, I gutted a post because I felt it was unnecessarily provocative and ended up leaving something pretty mediocre.

What I meant to address was the persistent invoking of the notion that prison rape is a persistent and common form of "frontier justice" meted out against the villainous even by prison standards.

You raise a good point that I didn't include any standard by which to claim it is common or uncommon. Obviously, sexual assault is more common in prisons than out. And yeah, I consider it a problem whereas some do not. But what I intended--and I agree, failed--to get across was both the trends and the larger social dynamics. By "some time ago" I meant since when it was discovered that prisoners might have human rights, or, at least, civil rights, and courts became more willing to hear grievances brought by prisoners (20-30 years ago? When was Farmer v. Brennan? I'm fuzzy...). Also, there has been a significant trend in the numbers (flawed as they probably are, as you point out) suggesting that prison sexual assault has gone down among male inmates while it has increased among female inmates; this would be relevant to what I was thinking about in that it is generally males who invoke the whole "Have fun in pound me in the ass prison!" thing.

While I admit I did a poor job expressing it, what I wanted to convey that commonplace discretionary punishment of male inmates through disciplinary ass rape has declined, if it ever even existed. Prison rape is almost always* about the predators preying upon the weak and susceptible and not about justice--just like everywhere else that sexual assault occurs, as often as not against people whom few would claim deserve it.

Frankly, I think it's much more likely that Sandusky gets beaten to death with a broom handle.

*I have heard and seen credible anecdotal accounts of punitive prison rape, but such incidences seem to be the exception and not the norm.

Now we're getting into "my cousin's brother's best friend from summer camp whose girlfriend works at 31 Flavors" territory. How convenient that the father's buddy hears a story that neatly lines up with an outcome of exculpating Paterno. Because McQueary tells the grand jury a far more detailed and specific version of what he saw rather than the "truth" because he likes stories...

Now we're getting into "my cousin's brother's best friend from summer camp whose girlfriend works at 31 Flavors" territory. How convenient that the father's buddy hears a story that neatly lines up with an outcome of exculpating Paterno. Because McQueary tells the grand jury a far more detailed and specific version of what he saw rather than the "truth" because he likes stories...

Um...

There, Dr. Jonathan Dranov, a family friend and colleague of McQueary’s father, sat with the then 28-year-old graduate assistant and listened to his very first account of what he had seen, a source told The Patriot-News.

According to the source with knowledge of Dranov’s testimony before the grand jury, it went like this:

This isn't allegedly some ex post facto revision. And it was allegedly made under oath, before a Grand Jury. Long before anybody knew what the consequences were to Paterno.

Sorry it doesn't fit in with your final verdict based on incomplete evidence.

You realize that testimony from someone who hears about an event is not the same as testimony from someone who witnesses an event? And that the grand jury found McQueary's detailed testimony -- in it's own words -- "very credible?"

You realize that testimony from someone who hears about an event is not the same as testimony from someone who witnesses an event? And that the grand jury found McQueary's detailed testimony -- in it's own words -- "very credible?"

Sure, pertaining to Sandusky's activities. However, when it comes to Curley and Schultz, the entire case is based on what they were told by Mike McQueary. An individual who listened to McQueary's first story about what happened (one who is not alleged to have had any affiliation with the university, and no apparent motive to perjure himself) testifies to the very nature of the accusations against Curley and Schultz and their defense: that they were not fully informed of what McQueary witnessed. This is fundamental, not hearsay. Nobody knows the full extent of the prosecution's case against the two administrators, but this has to cast at least a little doubt on their charge.

I think Jerry Sandusky is most likely guilty, and should it come out that Penn State administrators actually did attempt to willfully conceal his activities, I hope they get the longest jail sentence possible. But every single strident call to string everybody up was based on a daisy chain of assumptions without all available facts, and fueled by legitimate outrage at the deplorable nature of the allegations. This leak reveals that there are things we do not yet know about this case, and that withholding judgment is not only legally necessary, but cognitively prudent.

Ok, we're talking about 2 different things. I wasn't commenting on what school officials knew or didn't know. I was referring to the notion that McQueary might not have been sure he saw/suspected that a child was being raped in the showers.

Although I quibble with your own assumption that a guy who lived in that town but didn't work directly for the school is cleared of any potential rooting bias in favor of PSU or it's top administrators. It's a real small, company town. Perhaps the doctor knows the administrators socially -- we don't know yet.

Although I quibble with your own assumption that a guy who lived in that town but didn't work directly for the school is cleared of any potential rooting bias in favor of PSU or it's top administrators. It's a real small, company town. Perhaps the doctor knows the administrators socially -- we don't know yet.

(one who is not alleged to have had any affiliation with the university, and no apparent motive to perjure himself)

This is an observation of fact that makes no assumptions about his legitimacy going forward. Suspicion held right now in lieu of evidence is a mighty large chasm to cross.

Not that this has to do with the case, but Paterno has certainly seen better days.

Joe Paterno was admitted to a hospital Sunday morning after fracturing his pelvis when he slipped and fell at his home the previous night, a source close to the Paterno family said. The injury will not require surgery, the source said. But since the former Penn State football coach is being treated with chemotherapy as he battles lung cancer, doctors have decided to keep him in the hospital.

Basically this shows that the grand jury thought McQueary's testimony (along with previous evidence of Sandusky's transgressions) was credible enough to go to trial, despite getting conflicting testimony from Dr. Dramov (whose name should definitely be used as a villain in a Bond movie).

In a trial, they'll both likely have to testify, and if they give the same testimony, a jury will have to decide if Dramov's testimony will mitigate whatver McQueary alleges happened.

Basically this shows that the grand jury thought McQueary's testimony (along with previous evidence of Sandusky's transgressions) was credible enough to go to trial, despite getting conflicting testimony from Dr. Dramov (whose name should definitely be used as a villain in a Bond movie).

In a trial, they'll both likely have to testify, and if they give the same testimony, a jury will have to decide if Dramov's testimony will mitigate whatver McQueary alleges happened.

I don't think that this will have much effect on the Sandusky trial, if only because there is so much other circumstantial evidence, and presumably, first-hand testimony from victims that will really bury him. I just wonder what else the prosecution has in its possession for the charges of perjury and failure to report against Curley and Schultz. It seems that Dramov's testimony corroborates their claim that McQueary's initial report to them was materially different from what he told the grand jury. I mean, if it's he said/they said with little supporting evidence, I can't see those charges being proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The investigation is still ongoing. I wonder if the omission of Dr. Dramov's account from the grand jury report signifies that his testimony implicates people who are not yet charged.

In the end, perjury charges are difficult to prove, and I don't expect Curley or Schultz (or anyone else) to be convicted. Best-case scenario would be for the DA to cut plea deals with those two on the failure-to-report charges (which would end their careers) and secure their cooperation with the PSU inquiry, in exchange for no jail time.

We're not going to get "justice" in this case. Let's at least find out what really happened.

The investigation is still ongoing. I wonder if the omission of Dr. Dramov's account from the grand jury report signifies that his testimony implicates people who are not yet charged.

In the end, perjury charges are difficult to prove, and I don't expect Curley or Schultz (or anyone else) to be convicted. Best-case scenario would be for the DA to cut plea deals with those two on the failure-to-report charges (which would end their careers) and secure their cooperation with the PSU inquiry, in exchange for no jail time.

We're not going to get "justice" in this case. Let's at least find out what really happened.

You know those computer glitches. Always very careful when inadvertently releasing information. What is whole report, like 900 pages? It would be nice to read the whole thing, reputations be damned.

Ok, we're talking about 2 different things. I wasn't commenting on what school officials knew or didn't know. I was referring to the notion that McQueary might not have been sure he saw/suspected that a child was being raped in the showers.

Given what we know about the psychology of eyewitness accounts (and their generally unreliable nature in the most difficult situations), it's certainly possibly that McQueary himself has gone back and forth as to what he saw.

Note that I don't mean this to defend him at all, or say that he is or isn't a fucking clown - just that a sort of waffling nature would actually be consistent with most of the research on eyewitness accounts, and the relatively strong effect of outside factors on encoding and retrieval.

He also could well have told the different audiences different versions of the story - in fact, the way McQueary's been all over the map here, this actually seems particularly likely. Self-reporting things like "level of surety" is pretty unreliable in and of itself.

In the end (good lord, no pun intended), I don't think McQueary's testimony -- whatever it is -- is going to amount to a whole lot in terms of convicting Sandusky. The alleged victims will be more than enough to put him away. But I agree with the notion that it may be critical in terms of the perjury charges, which I could care less about, frankly. There certainly appears to be a broad conspiracy to cover up Sandusky's activities in order to protect the football program and that will probably never get prosecuted.

Sandusky waived his right to a preliminary hearing this morning, nothing like waiting until the case starts to notify everyone who traveled and mentally prepared to testify. Accusers though now will only have to testify once.

Sandusky waived his right to a preliminary hearing this morning, nothing like waiting until the case starts to notify everyone who traveled and mentally prepared to testify. Accusers though now will only have to testify once.

Case now goes to Common Pleas court. Arraignment set Jan. 11.

Is anyone familiar with the hearsay rules in PA state court? If the victims had testified, I'm curious whether the state could have introduced the transcripts at trial if the victims were unavailable (died, moved out of state, etc.). If so, waiving the hearing was the right move.

Let's not forget that our justice system depends on having talented people who are willing to defend the likes of Jerry Sandusky. I've been critical of Sandusky's attorney for his out-of-court statements, but even I don't think he should have waived his client's rights sooner for the sake of the people who want to put his client behind bars for the balance of his life.

Is anyone familiar with the hearsay rules in PA state court? If the victims had testified, I'm curious whether the state could have introduced the transcripts at trial if the victims were unavailable (died, moved out of state, etc.). If so, waiving the hearing was the right move.

Let's not forget that our justice system depends on having talented people who are willing to defend the likes of Jerry Sandusky. I've been critical of Sandusky's attorney for his out-of-court statements, but even I don't think he should have waived his client's rights sooner for the sake of the people who want to put his client behind bars for the balance of his life.

PA allows hearsay under special circumstances, including depositions. Here's the law for your reference.

PA allows hearsay under special circumstances, including depositions. Here's the law for your reference.

Thanks -- that's not exactly the rule, but it led me to this related provision. The PA rule is similar to the rule that applies in federal court (and in most other states' courts) -- prior testimony is only admissible if the defendant had an opportunity and similar motive to cross-examine the witness.

From what I've read, it seems like attacks on witnesses' credibility would have been off limits during the preliminary hearing. Based on this case (which is not exactly on point), I suspect this limitation on cross-examination would be sufficient to render the preliminary hearing testimony inadmissible at trial. There may be a case directly on point, but I don't have time to find it.

Therefore, Amendola's decision not to cross-examine Sandusky's accusers probably had more to do with PR considerations than litigation tactics. If Amendola can't impeach the victims' credibility, he'd rather not have them tell their stories in open court, because it would make it that much more difficult for his client to get a fair trial.

Of course, Sandusky is clearly guilty and will be convicted. Even putting my lawyer hat on, I used the word "victims" to describe the witnesses -- it seemed wrong to use any other description.

Fucking piece of shit further abusing his victims. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for them to prepare for today and now have the rug pulled out from under them by not allowing their voices to be heard today. He's a fucking coward and his attorney exemplifies all that is wrong with our judicial system. Not saying he didn't have this right or that his attorney wasn't acting in his best interests, but I'm viewing this from the side of the victims and it seems to me that he's continuing to bully them to this day. I know they'll get their day in court, but it's still an emotional blow that they no doubt did not need.

Fucking piece of shit further abusing his victims. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for them to prepare for today and now have the rug pulled out from under them by not allowing their voices to be heard today. He's a fucking coward and his attorney exemplifies all that is wrong with our judicial system. Not saying he didn't have this right or that his attorney wasn't acting in his best interests, but I'm viewing this from the side of the victims and it seems to me that he's continuing to bully them to this day. I know they'll get their day in court, but it's still an emotional blow that they no doubt did not need.

I'm sure the victims' lawyers/prosecutors explained to the victims the likelihood of this happening. Not that it makes any less difficult, but they probably had a good idea this was going to happen.

Here's an e-mail PSU President Rodney Erickson has sent alumni with answers to 6 FAQ. I'll show the questions and include the e-mail in a spoiler so those who don't want to read it can simply skip it without scrolling.

1. What is your reaction to the allegations in the Grand Jury presentment?2. Actions speak louder than words: what is Penn State doing to help combat the problem of child abuse?3. Last week USA Today reported that Penn State is rethinking the role of the football program. What does that mean?4. Despite the fact that the vast majority of Penn Staters had nothing to do with the incidents under investigation, it feels like the entire University is being judged. How can we move forward?5. What investigations are currently under way at Penn State, and how do we know they are sufficiently independent?6. How do I report ethics violations? Are there new procedures?

Spoiler

Common Questions

Since I was appointed president nearly six weeks ago, I have received thousands of letters and emails from individuals across the University and around the world. These notes run the gamut from strong support to questions to suggestions to dissatisfaction with my decisions or the pace of our progress. I appreciate all of the input â€" I value your opinions and I am committed to listening to your concerns. We weigh many factors in our decision-making process, and your feedback is important.

My staff and I are doing our best to respond personally to all the mail in a timely fashion. However, given the volume, I wanted to take this opportunity to answer a few of the most common questions that are coming across my desk.

1. What is your reaction to the allegations in the Grand Jury presentment?These are very serious allegations, and we are fully cooperating with the investigations under way. I am very concerned and will do whatever I can to further the process. However, I'm also trying to focus on the future of Penn State. We are a great university, with outstanding academic accomplishments, a remarkable research enterprise, and extraordinary students, faculty, staff and alumni. We need to tell that story too.

2. Actions speak louder than words: what is Penn State doing to help combat the problem of child abuse?Penn State has committed $1.5 million of its share of Big Ten bowl game revenues to the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape and the National Sexual Violence Resource Center to assist in the efforts to raise awareness about child sexual abuse and develop outreach educational programming across the Commonwealth and beyond. Last week we announced the launch of a Center for the Protection of Children at the Hershey Medical Center that will be devoted to the prevention and treatment of child abuse. The Center, which will also be supported by bowl revenues, is the first piece of a University-wide institute that will bring together many existing and expanding resources at Penn State related to the prevention and treatment of child abuse. Late last month the University opened a Sexual Assault and Relationship Violence Hotline at 800-550-7575 (TTY 866-714-7177) that can be accessed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for all Penn State Campuses. See http://live.psu.edu/tag/Penn_State_! Promise for the latest updates.

3. Last week USA Today reported that Penn State is rethinking the role of the football program. What does that mean?Intercollegiate athletics, including our very successful football program, will always be a part of who we are, but the University needs to emphasize the balance between athletics and our core mission and our long-standing academic excellence. Athletics is part of a broader picture, and Penn State's academic efforts also deserve to be heralded. I intend to see that our stellar academic program becomes a more important face of Penn State.

4. Despite the fact that the vast majority of Penn Staters had nothing to do with the incidents under investigation, it feels like the entire University is being judged. How can we move forward?I get this question frequently from students, faculty, staff, parents and alumni, and I understand the concerns. As a community, we need to work together to refocus on our educational goals and to rebuild the enthusiasm and pride that has characterized Penn State for more than 155 years. Although it will take some time to return to a more normal situation, we must make every effort to take note of and publicize the many wonderful things that Penn Staters are doing every day inside and outside the University. We should also take time to participate in and enjoy the performances, lectures, exhibits, extracurricular activities, athletic competitions, and holiday events. Together, let's try to rebuild our sense of community through our conduct, communications and interactions with one another, and our participation in uplifting campus and community experiences.

5. What investigations are currently under way at Penn State, and how do we know they are sufficiently independent?We are voluntarily cooperating with all of the investigations under way. The Board of Trustee's Special Investigations Task Force has charged Judge Louis Freeh, former director of the FBI, with conducting the investigation into all aspects of the University's actions with regard to the allegations of child abuse involving a former Penn State employee contained in the recent Grand Jury report. Judge Freeh is known for his honesty, integrity and due diligence. He has pledged to conduct a thorough investigation and the Trustees have promised to make the results public. He is an independent investigator, and I have complete confidence in his objectivity. In addition, Penn State is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Education, and the Pennsylvania Attorney General's criminal investigation continues. The NCAA and the Big Ten have also notified us that future investigations could be launched. At Penn State, we are committed to an open and honest discovery process; the knowledge gained will be critical for the future well-being of our institution.

6. How do I report ethics violations? Are there new procedures?Penn State has had a longstanding, confidential Ethics and Compliance Hotline, and we are taking steps to publicize it and to educate the community about these important issues. The purpose of the 24/7 hotline â€" 800-560-1637 â€" is to report problems including financial matters such as fraud, theft, conflict of interest and other violations of University policy, including research compliance matters, discrimination, athletics-compliance issues and more. Additional resources can be found here: http://live.psu.edu/story/56545 and at the University Ethics web site: http://www.universit...policies.shtml.

There are many more questions, and I will continue to keep you updated to the best of my ability. I look forward to greeting the Class of 2011, faculty, staff and families at Commencement this weekend. For those who will be traveling, please enjoy a safe and relaxing semester break.

Again, thank you for being a part of Penn State!President Rodney Erickson

This really isn't all that bad for the accusers. A PC hearing would have been held to establish probable cause so that the trial could go forward. They are getting the same result WITHOUT having to testify twice. Of course, it's also good for the defendant in theory, because the testimony would have generated awful pretrial publicity for him.

Joseph Amendola, who is supposed to be defending the former Penn State defensive coordinator who has been accused of multiple counts of sex abuse against young boys, continues to have foot-in-mouth moments. Tuesday, after Sandusky waived his preliminary hearing to go straight to trial, Amedola held an impromptu news conference on the courthouse steps and announced that anyone who thinks Sandusky is a child molester should call "1-800-REALITY."

"Anyone who is naive enough to think for a minute that Tim Curley, Joe Paterno and Gary Schultz and, for that matter, Graham Spanier, the university president, were told by Mike McQueary that he observed Jerry Sandusky having anal sex with a 10-year-old-looking kid in a shower at Penn State or Penn State property and their response was to simply tell Jerry Sandusky that, 'Don't go in the shower room any more with kids.' I suggest you dial 1-800-REALITY. Because that makes absolutely no sense."

No, what makes no sense is Amendola asking folks to call a gay sex line in an attempt to clear his client's name. Yeah, "1-800-REALITY" is a gay sex line. We know. We called. We heard, "Hey guys, welcome to the hottest place for triple-X action" and we hung up.

As for my earlier angry rant, I had "today" "on the way into the clubhouse" "with a candlestick" in the "When, where, and how will Sandusky be killed" pool. I can deal with a lot, but I have zero sympathy for people who do bad things to kids.

In an interview with WHTM-TV, attorney Karl Rominger, the newest member of the former Penn State defensive coordinator’s defense team, offered up an interesting — and creepy — explanation as to why Sandusky showered alone with boys as young as 10 years old he had met through his Second Mile charity.

“Some of these kids don’t have basic hygiene skills,” Rominger told the television station, presumably with a straight face throughout. “Teaching a person to shower at the age of 12 or 14 sounds strange to some people, but people who work with troubled youth will tell you there are a lot of juvenile delinquents and people who are dependent who have to be taught basic life skills like how to put soap on their body.”

Is anyone familiar with the hearsay rules in PA state court? If the victims had testified, I'm curious whether Let's not forget that our justice system depends on having talented people who are willing to defend the likes of Jerry Sandusky. I've been critical of Sandusky's attorney for his out-of-court statements, but even I don't think he should have waived his client's rights sooner for the sake of the people who want to put his client behind bars for the balance of his life.

My understanding was that what is weird here is that he didn't originally waive the hearing which is standard practice, but then did at the last minute.

I agree about the right to an attorney, but that kind gamesmanship may be in a grayer area. And it's getting pretty tough to give the defense team the "this is about the right to a defense" benefit of the doubt--this doesn't sound like Adams's declaration that facts are stubborn things, so to speak.

I've never seen a bigger legal trainwreck than what is passing for Sandusky's defense. No effing WAY would I waive prelim in a case like this. It doesn't matter that you won't win (here in PA, the prosecution only has to make out a prima facie case, so the credibility of the witnesses doesn't matter). It doesn't matter that you'll hear a shitstorm of damning testimony. You have the hearing so you can get a preview of the prosecution's case, observe & evaluate the witnesses, and get their stories on the record early. In other words, it's probably the best discovery the defense will get.

And doing this after both Sandusky & Amendola, in the parlance of the trade, barfed all over themselves (repeatedly) in front of a national audience? Just breathtakingly incompetent. And bizarre.

My understanding was that what is weird here is that he didn't originally waive the hearing which is standard practice, but then did at the last minute.

I agree about the right to an attorney, but that kind gamesmanship may be in a grayer area. And it's getting pretty tough to give the defense team the "this is about the right to a defense" benefit of the doubt--this doesn't sound like Adams's declaration that facts are stubborn things, so to speak.

I don't think it was gamesmanship. My guess is that Sandusky didn't think that any of the victims would actually testify of the preliminary hearing. And once he realized that he was about to face them, he lost his nerve and begged out.

I would add that Sandusky's lawyer doesn't strike me as being smart enough to carry out a coherent strategy. He seems like he's just winging it.

McQueary recalled hearing slapping noises — skin on skin — as he walked into the locker room that night in 2002. He peered, through a mirror reflection, into the shower and saw a young boy up against the wall, he testified. Sandusky was behind him, holding his waist, he said.

"I really didn't know what to do," McQueary said on the stand...

He said that when he first spotted Sandusky and the boy in the shower, for a few seconds he froze. Then he slammed his locker, making a bang, and walked toward the shower to get a look with his own eye. By then, the boy and Sandusky separated and were looking him in the eye. No one said a word. It's an account he says he later repeated for Curley and Schultz. They deny McQueary ever said anything so shocking.

Curley and Schultz will both go to trial on charges of perjury, though McQueary has been sufficiently ambiguous in some reports (eg, Dranov's account) that it seems more likely that they will reach some sort of plea deal on the misdemeanor charge of failing to report child abuse to authorities.

Penn State starting quarterback Matt McGloin and wide receiver Curtis Drake were involved in a locker room fight after practice Saturday that sent McGloin to the hospital.

University police were sent to the Lasch Football Building to investigate the report of the altercation between McGloin and Drake, according to a statement issued by Penn State Saturday night. McGloin was taken to nearby Mount Nittany Medical Center for examination, was treated for undisclosed injuries, and released.

McGloin’s father, Paul, however, told the Harrisburg Patriot-News that his son suffered a seizure and likely a concussion. Paul McGloin also said a CAT scan and MRI exam were negative.

Penn State said campus police and the Office of Judicial Affairs will "investigate the incident and report results as they would for any other student involved in an incident on campus." The university did not elaborate.

Curley and Schultz will both go to trial on charges of perjury, though McQueary has been sufficiently ambiguous in some reports (eg, Dranov's account) that it seems more likely that they will reach some sort of plea deal on the misdemeanor charge of failing to report child abuse to authorities.

From the link:

Paterno told the panel that McQueary called him on a Saturday morning, but he couldn’t remember what year.

He said McQueary told him he’d seen Sandusky who was “fondling a young boy” in the showers of the Lasch Building.

“It was of sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was. I didn’t push Mike ... because he was obviously very upset,” according to Paterno’s grand jury testimony. “I was in a little bit of a dilemma ... because Sandusky didn’t work for me anymore,” it continues.

Paterno testified that he told McQueary he would contact the appropriate people at Penn State.

“I have a tremendous amount of confidence in Mr. Curley, I thought he would handle it appropriately,” according to testimony. “... I did tell Mike, ‘You did what was right; you told me.’”

He continued to explain that he couldn’t be precise about when he called Curley because it was a Saturday, and he probably didn’t want to disrupt his weekend.

When asked about other reports of similar activity, Paterno said he had no recollection of any such rumors being discussed in his presence.

Paterno’s response, which has been widely criticized and led to his firing five days after Sandusky was first charged, was corroborated by McQueary.

“[Paterno] was slumped back in his chair,” McQueary said. “[Paterno] said, ‘Well, I’m sorry you had to see that. It’s terrible. I need to think and tell some people about what you saw, and I’ll let you know what we’ll do next.’”

Schultz, Curley statements

There were no bombshells, no surprises in the testimony of Schultz and Curley that was also read into the record by representatives of the attorney general’s office.

It was just a longer version of the grand jury summary — both repeatedly denied being told anything akin to a crime.

Schultz did admit McQueary might have said something about Sandusky touching the boy’s genitals, and Curley admitted it seemed “inappropriate.”

Neither thought it rose to the level of calling police, even though Schultz said he recognized it was very similar circumstance to a 1998 report of Sandusky hugging a boy naked in the same shower.

In that case, police investigated, but now-missing District Attorney Ray Gricar decided not to press charges.

“Unbelievable,” the prosecutor, Bruce Beemer, said in his arguments to the judge.

-- Second Mile CEO Jack Raykovitz learned about the 2002 allegations against Sandusky, and PSU's related decision to tell Sandusky he could no longer bring children to campus. The article doesn't say when Raykovitz learned this information, but implies it was close in time to when the events actually occurred (i.e., in 2002 or 2003).

-- Raykovitz's source was Tim Curley -- the former PSU athletic director who is now under indictment for perjury. Remember, Curley testified that he was only informed of "inappropriate" conduct by Sandusky, and nothing anything like what the grand jury report alleges. Curley says he provided similarly vague information to Raykovitz.

-- Raykovitz maintains that Curley further told him that the incident had been investigated, and that Sandusky had been cleared of wrongdoing. It's not clear from the article whether Curley corroborated this detail. (It's possible he wasn't asked -- Raykovitz presumably wasn't a target of the grand jury investigation.)

-- Two VPs who worked for Raykovitz said details about the 2008 allegation against Sandusky (which spurred the current investigation) were closely held within TSM at first. When Sandusky resigned from the Board in 2009, TSM staff were told he had been accused of abuse, but the sexual nature of the alleged abuse was not specified, even at that late date.

-- In November 2008, a child protection official from a neighboring county claims he told Raykovitz's wife that his agency was terminating its relationship with TSM because of abuse allegations. The official didn't name Sandusky, but he says Raykovitz's wife "eventually guessed correctly" (the article's words) that Sandusky was the person accused of wrongdoing. The official also says that Raykovitz's wife told him that a member of the TSM board would be speaking to Sandusky about staying away from TSM events involving children. A few of the Board members quoted in the article left the Board in the 2004-05 time frame, so even assuming this hearsay is accurate (and that she was telling the truth), this doesn't necessarily contradict the Board members' accounts. Raykovitz claims the official is misreporting the conversation with his wife. (She isn't talking.)

-- The acting CEO (Raykovitz resigned shortly after Sandusky's indictment) refuses to discuss the organization's handling of its knowledge of the 2002 allegations.

Damn, I had to read that article three or four times to grab all those facts. Did I miss anything important?